MrGautama
Not a Member
Wikipedia
To sound or be demeaning is unacceptable for me so I apologize, I think it's a fair call.
To Davekc
- Thread starter MrGautama
- Start date
Wikipedia
To sound or be demeaning is unacceptable for me so I apologize, I think it's a fair call.
I'm just taking on the same kind of "When did you stop beating your wife" tactic that you've employed so often, and so well, in so many of your posts.
No doubt because you believe that the workers are being exploited in the classic sense that when the capitalists own and control the means of producing the necessities of life, the workers therefor must must work for the capitalists in order to survive, and are exploited absolutely, and that goods and service should provided strictly for their need and usefulness, and not with regard to profit. You can spin it any way you want, but that's the litmus test right there. Everything else is just different flavors and variations of the same thing. Marxism is a variant of Socialism, which is Liberalism. A centralized means of production is Communism, and is Marxist-Leninist. They are all just different variants of liberalism.
Excellent use of the "When did you stop beating your wife" tactic, I must say. I actually don't believe in protecting the power of corporations, but I don't believe in taking the power away from them just because they have it and I don't, either. (how's that for effective use of the tactic?)
I believe in protecting the power of thought, of ideas, of protecting the power of innovation and resourcefulness and in of choosing for oneself. These are the things that liberalism, in all of its flavors, squash like a bug.
You were the one who used the term "Fascist". I don't recall the "M" word being thrown around as an adjective for liberals in this thread.
Just for clarification, here's a rather long but thought-provoking essay by Nelson Hultburg about the distortions being used by academics and media pundits to describe today's political spectrum:
"The true political spectrum that properly portrays reality according to Aristotle's doctrine of the mean would be as follows:
The far left of the spectrum is the vice of total government (whether it calls itself communism, socialism or fascism). The far right is its ex­act opposite, the vice of no government. The middle is the virtue of limited government (and its economic corollary of capitalism), with welfarism a semi-­capitalist, semi-socialist mixture, and the anarcho-capitalism of the rad­ical libertarians a semi-capitalist, semi-anarchist mixture."
Americans for a Free Republic
Notice that Socialism, Communism and Fascism are all at the extreme left exemplifying the position of extreme government control. To the extreme right is Anarchism - no government at all. In the middle is Capitalism, which is certainly not being portrayed as a center position by most of today's liberally biased media. Unfortunately, we must sit as spectators as Barack Hussein Obama drags us further toward welfarism (or beyond) for the next four years.
MrGautama
Not a Member
I don't know what it is... but it sounds useful!!, so I'll find out!!
For the rest well I believe that a system based on profit robs us our most precious "commodity", time. In a non-for-profit system we would have to work a lot less to achieve a similar standard of living freeing us to pursue more fulfilling activities. It would increase our freedoms instead of reducing them.
I do need an explanation on this, how Libertarian Socialism (specifically please) would in any way limit you in any of the points mentioned above?.
And about "choosing for oneself", Don't you think that Direct Democracy (the method proposed in Libertarian Socialism) would lead to more freedom to choose than our current system of Representative Democracy?
MrGautama
Not a Member
This is in regards post #155 by Pilgrim.
Pilgrim, that piece by Mr. Hultberg is just fascinating and I'm going to tell you why if you have the patience and time to follow.
The Doctrine of Mean (Golden Mean) is found in book #2 (Moral Virtue) of Nicomachean Ethics. They are based on notes from Aristotle's lectures. Moral character and virtue is the scope of this work aiming to connect morality and happiness in the individual using the idea that a healthy “middle of the road” approach would be the recipe for a happy life. It's a concept shared with Buddhism and Confucianism.
So far so good, now Mr. Hultberg takes Aristotle's work and transfers it to a completely different field from which the author intended and tries to apply it to the political spectrum. He then separates the different tendencies based on “size of government” (note how he conveniently places his political position at the “middle of the road”)
I have to say that at first glance looks convincing but in an open lecture I, just a simple truck driver (never mind any academic), could poke a hole in his proposition with one stroke and sink it to the bottom. The question would be: Where to put me?, that's right, where to put Mr Gautama in his table?. Libertarian Socialism (also known as Socialist Anarchism), the political philosophy I subscribe to, can't be accommodated in any of the categories that Mr. Hultberg proposes. Either I can be a Socialist (excess) or I can be an Anarchist (defect), in other words... I don't exist.
I have the feeling that Mr. Hultberg , that certainly understands the Doctrine of Mean, uses Aristotle's name as a measure of credibility, moves his work out of context, and molds his explanation to fit his position.
I really think it's a dishonest work, and he might get away with it if we don't question his methodology.
What do you think?, makes any sense?
Pilgrim, that piece by Mr. Hultberg is just fascinating and I'm going to tell you why if you have the patience and time to follow.
The Doctrine of Mean (Golden Mean) is found in book #2 (Moral Virtue) of Nicomachean Ethics. They are based on notes from Aristotle's lectures. Moral character and virtue is the scope of this work aiming to connect morality and happiness in the individual using the idea that a healthy “middle of the road” approach would be the recipe for a happy life. It's a concept shared with Buddhism and Confucianism.
So far so good, now Mr. Hultberg takes Aristotle's work and transfers it to a completely different field from which the author intended and tries to apply it to the political spectrum. He then separates the different tendencies based on “size of government” (note how he conveniently places his political position at the “middle of the road”)
I have to say that at first glance looks convincing but in an open lecture I, just a simple truck driver (never mind any academic), could poke a hole in his proposition with one stroke and sink it to the bottom. The question would be: Where to put me?, that's right, where to put Mr Gautama in his table?. Libertarian Socialism (also known as Socialist Anarchism), the political philosophy I subscribe to, can't be accommodated in any of the categories that Mr. Hultberg proposes. Either I can be a Socialist (excess) or I can be an Anarchist (defect), in other words... I don't exist.
I have the feeling that Mr. Hultberg , that certainly understands the Doctrine of Mean, uses Aristotle's name as a measure of credibility, moves his work out of context, and molds his explanation to fit his position.
I really think it's a dishonest work, and he might get away with it if we don't question his methodology.
What do you think?, makes any sense?
MrGautama
Not a Member
Very well, for now a “username” will have to suffice, you can call it what you want but telling you who I am is not something that's going to happen. If you can't live with that just simply ignore my posts.
There are no examples of Libertarian Socialism, all forms of Anarchism have always been crushed around the world, Anarchists are despised by Capitalists and Communists alike because they threaten the power that they hold. The only real experiment in Anarchism was observed in Spain during the 30's but as expected was crushed by Franco's Fascism, with the helpful hand of the Nazi Luftwaffe.
Just a superficial description to get introduced to the basic idea can be found in the first 3 paragraphs of this Wikipedia entry.
Authoritarian social relationships means dividing society into (the few) order givers and (the many) order takers, impoverishing the individuals involved (mentally, emotionally and physically) and society as a whole. Human relationships, in all parts of life, are stamped by authority, not liberty. And as freedom can only be created by freedom, authoritarian social relationships (and the obedience they require) do not and cannot educate a person in freedom -- only participation (self-management) in all areas of life can do that. "In a society based on exploitation and servitude," in Kropotkin's words, "human nature itself is degraded" and it is only "as servitude disappears" shall we "regain our rights." [Anarchism, p. 104]
I'm closing in.....Mr G's Parents should've spanked him when he was younger.....that's funny...
I'm closing in.....Mr G's Parents should've spanked him when he was younger.....that's funny...
The logical fallacy and the loaded question. Your posts are rife with them. They are statements or questions containing false, disputed, or question-begging presuppositions. For example, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It's a YES or NO question, and no matter how you answer, YES or NO, the question presumes that you have in the past, or are currently, beating your wife. It also presumes you even have a wife. There is no way to answer that without agreeing to the supposition, without implicating yourself.I don't know what it is... but it sounds useful!!, so I'll find out!!
Loaded questions (or in the form of loaded statements) are used to cleverly slip claims into rhetoric without the burden of proving them, or the necessity of taking responsibility for unproven assertions.
Another example, and this one is loaded, loaded, loaded with false, disputed or question-begging suppositions:
"One is our eternal intervention, for the benefit of American corporations, in the Latin American countries impeding their social progress which is instrumental in forcing millions of people into poverty. So now we have the hordes of displaced people looking to escape their situation, a creation in grand measure by the greed of our concentrations of power."
The "eternal intervention" lays it on a little thick, but that one can slide, however, the unsubstantiated claims slipped into the rhetoric are:
"for the benefit of American corporations"
"impeding their social progress"
"which is instrumental"
"forcing millions of people into poverty"
All of which must go unproven, unquestioned, and presupposed in order to buy into the final sentence, which itself even includes a presuppositon ("a creation in grand measure by the greed of our concentrations of power.")
If you take out the rhetoric and you are left with,
"One is our eternal intervention in the Latin American countries. Now we have the hordes of displaced people looking to escape their situation."
That's a statement that can be dealt with, argued and debated, but your original statment cannot be debated without first debating all of the presuppositions. Politicians and academics are well skilled in the use of argument tactics like complex questions, loaded questions, logical fallacies, not to mention the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy which you've used a time or two here, as well.
But would we have to work less? What "more fullfilling activities" would even be available to us? I'm guessing a weekend on the family houseboat wouldn't be one of them. In an not-for-profit society goods and services are produced and provided strictly for their need and usefulness, not for their wants and desires.
Well, I never mentioned Libertarian Socialism, mainly because it's never truly existed. It's an ideology based on Utopian views, and human nature dictates that Utopia cannot and will not ever exist.
It's the aspiration to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, yet a productive society of humans cannot exist without some form of heirarchy. You can't even have a family without that, much less a society of several million people. But it's based on the believe that management of the common good is necessary, which is Socialism, and somebody's got to be in charge of that, but it should be done in a manner that preserves individual liberty and avoids concentration of power or authority, which is Libertarianism, and somebody's got to be in charge of that, too. You can't have Socialism without having some kind of heriarchy, or some kind of concentration of authority. Can't be done. As soon as you have one person say, "I don't wanna," and another person say, "But you gotta," it all falls apart.
Then you have the problem of a direct democracy. The majority rules, absolutely, and the minority, or the individual, is screwed. So much for choosing for oneself. So much for having an idea and the opportunity to develop it if it's not popular. If you avoid a direct democracy, you're left with a republic, which means political hierarchy, which we just can't have that in Libertarian Socialism.
Libertarian Socialism sounds good, looks great on paper, but it won't work with people. It's all about picking and choosing the best bits and pieces from socialism and capitalism and putting it all together, and somebody's got to be in charge of that, too. It's still all about telling people what to do. Heck, you can gather up 100 Libertarial Socialists and ask them what Libertarian Socialism is, and you'll get 100 different answers. If you guys can't even agree on what it is, on what you want to do with it, what makes you think it'll work with millions of people who all have their own ideas about it?
Absolutely not. That's something that history has proven time and time again. In a direct democracy personal security, rights, even liberty itself is at the mercy of the majority. "The good of the many outweight the good of the few, or the one," is a great line for a movie, but it sacrifices, utterly, the minority for the will and the whims of the majority (a.k.a. the greater good). That's tyrany. Direct democracy works well in some situations, like ballot referendums and town meetings, but it can easily be abused so it must be placed in check carefully. Ask any smoker in Ohio, they'll tell ya.
I think you've hit the nail on the head: "...in other words, I don't exist." It's fair to say the reason your particular political philosophy (Libertarian Socialism or Socialist Anarchism) isn't represented on Hultburg's spectrum is because in reality it doesn't exist or is so insignificant that it doesn't merit mention. It's a theory at best, and it's most notable representation was by some activists involved with the revolution in Spain in 1936-1937 as I believe you, yourself previously mentioned.
Libertarian Socialism and Social Anarchism are also contradictory in terms and concepts. The two conflicting philosophies can't meld in the real world with real people - that's why there's never been a functional example of it as a government.
"Libertarianism puts the rights of the individual as the first of all virtues. Libertarian socialism is individualist collectivism. Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron."
The above quote was taken from yet another thought-provoking article that dispells the legitimacy of Libertarian Socialism:
The Fallacy of 'Libertarian Socialism'
MrGautama
Not a Member
I believe that by loaded question you are referring to a complex statement, as in your wife saying: “Well, I hope you enjoyed making a fool of me in front of all my friends!”. But in any case is the same thing in a different form.
Now to begging the question, is a fallacy in the form of a circular argument as in “I didn't steal it, I'm not a thief!”
Analyzing my statement:
"One is our eternal intervention, for the benefit of American corporations, in the Latin American countries impeding their social progress which is instrumental in forcing millions of people into poverty. So now we have the hordes of displaced people looking to escape their situation, a creation in grand measure by the greed of our concentrations of power."
This statement doesn't meet the requirements to be classified as a complex statement or begging the question. But it takes us to the completely different topic of audience; if I had made that statement in a different setting, let's say an Anarchist forum, the reaction to it would have been the opposite of what we can expect to get here. In the anarchist forum, most if not all participants are aware of the facts mentioned in the statement and based on that foundation it makes sense to arrive to the conclusion. On the other hand, here most if not all participants are not aware of the validity of the claims I make to arrive to the conclusion.
So what is the solution for the problem?, should I be forced to explain every detail in my statements, in other words adapt the way I express the facts to arrive to a conclusion depending on the make of the audience, or; is the audience's responsibility to grow up, see through the myth, and be in command of the basic facts of a certain topic they choose to get involved in?.
As an example of that I could say “because the earth is round, if we start moving in one direction eventually we will arrive back to the starting point”. Do I really have to present all the scientific evidence supporting the roundness of the planet or, is the audience's responsibility to know that fact if we are going to engage in a conversation about movement through the surface of the earth?.
This one, even if it doesn't look like it, takes us to a much more complex series of concepts; but to keep it simple in participatory economics there is nothing precluding you to spend the weekend on the family houseboat. The consumers councils (of which you would be a part of if you choose to) will be there not only to design proposals based in need and usefulness but also in wants and desires.
As a side note to the topic, consumption as we know it today is just unsustainable. Anything you believe you are entitled to must be consider as an entitlement to everyone, meaning if you want a houseboat then everybody should be entitled to have one. So let's say, for the sake of argument, that everyone gets a houseboat. Now what we have is millions of boats that are used maybe twice a month, remaining docked and unused most of the time. Is this the best way to make use of our natural resources?, it is worth all the energy used and pollution produced in the manufacture of this boats?, are there wiser ways to tackle this kind of wants and desires?. Can you come up with a better solution or you have to hopelessly surrender to the childish compulsion of it's mine... my precious?.
I've been wondering why you throw around so much the word Utopia. Utopia is the dream of fools and has nothing to do with Anarchism. What we are talking here is to have vision and not the pursuit of Utopia.
Libertarian Socialism is to Anarchism what Secular Humanism is to Atheism. So to say that Libertarian Socialism never truly existed is the same as saying Anarchism also never did.
The fact that Anarchism has been crushed by force doesn't in any way makes it inexistent, it only means that it has never been allowed to go beyond theory.
All the ranting about hierarchy and the necessity of it is baseless, in a participatory economy you could without any problem say I don't wanna and no one can come and say but you gotta!, if you don't want to do it you just are going to get less remuneration or won't enjoy all the benefits of the system, that's all. Sounds familiar?
It sounds odd that you would prefer to elect someone to make decisions for you, that sound a lot like my elected representative knows what's good for me better than I do. The same representative that can be bribed (read: lobbied) to make decisions that are in opposition to your interests.
In a participatory economy you would be able to influence decisions in proportion as the decisions affect you. In other words, you have 100% control of what color to paint your house because you are the only affected by that decision, then you would have a vote in the neighbors council regarding the type of shrubs to be planted on the median of the street that runs through the neighborhood, also a vote in the city council in relation to the proposed new subway line, etc. Or no vote if you choose not to participate.
In conclusion, it would be as is today in which you choose where to live depending on the surroundings and culture that better fit your personality. The consumer councils and community councils from, let's say NY City and Nashville would be drastically different in their vision and culture and you could choose which one is better suited for you; a lot like today but with the power to influence outcomes that now are completely out of reach for the ordinary citizen, and without being dependent on the good will or honesty of your elected representative.
Libertarian Socialism has no bits and pieces of Capitalism, workers councils and consumers councils take the place of the market. In a system of proposals and iterations they arrive to ideal output, type of output, and so on. So no one person or group is in charge.
About the 100 Libertarian Socialists, is that a fact or just a guess on your part?. Also, aren't there a few Capitalist tendencies too?
So I take that you prefer that decisions concerning your life are taken for you instead of by you.
Now to begging the question, is a fallacy in the form of a circular argument as in “I didn't steal it, I'm not a thief!”
Analyzing my statement:
"One is our eternal intervention, for the benefit of American corporations, in the Latin American countries impeding their social progress which is instrumental in forcing millions of people into poverty. So now we have the hordes of displaced people looking to escape their situation, a creation in grand measure by the greed of our concentrations of power."
- One is our eternal intervention... in the Latin American countries: factual statement
- For the benefit of American corporations: factual statement
- Which is instrumental in forcing millions of people into poverty: factual statement
- A creation in grand measure by the greed of our concentrations of power: factual statement
- So now we have the hordes of displaced people looking to escape their situation: concussion
This statement doesn't meet the requirements to be classified as a complex statement or begging the question. But it takes us to the completely different topic of audience; if I had made that statement in a different setting, let's say an Anarchist forum, the reaction to it would have been the opposite of what we can expect to get here. In the anarchist forum, most if not all participants are aware of the facts mentioned in the statement and based on that foundation it makes sense to arrive to the conclusion. On the other hand, here most if not all participants are not aware of the validity of the claims I make to arrive to the conclusion.
So what is the solution for the problem?, should I be forced to explain every detail in my statements, in other words adapt the way I express the facts to arrive to a conclusion depending on the make of the audience, or; is the audience's responsibility to grow up, see through the myth, and be in command of the basic facts of a certain topic they choose to get involved in?.
As an example of that I could say “because the earth is round, if we start moving in one direction eventually we will arrive back to the starting point”. Do I really have to present all the scientific evidence supporting the roundness of the planet or, is the audience's responsibility to know that fact if we are going to engage in a conversation about movement through the surface of the earth?.
This one, even if it doesn't look like it, takes us to a much more complex series of concepts; but to keep it simple in participatory economics there is nothing precluding you to spend the weekend on the family houseboat. The consumers councils (of which you would be a part of if you choose to) will be there not only to design proposals based in need and usefulness but also in wants and desires.
As a side note to the topic, consumption as we know it today is just unsustainable. Anything you believe you are entitled to must be consider as an entitlement to everyone, meaning if you want a houseboat then everybody should be entitled to have one. So let's say, for the sake of argument, that everyone gets a houseboat. Now what we have is millions of boats that are used maybe twice a month, remaining docked and unused most of the time. Is this the best way to make use of our natural resources?, it is worth all the energy used and pollution produced in the manufacture of this boats?, are there wiser ways to tackle this kind of wants and desires?. Can you come up with a better solution or you have to hopelessly surrender to the childish compulsion of it's mine... my precious?.
I've been wondering why you throw around so much the word Utopia. Utopia is the dream of fools and has nothing to do with Anarchism. What we are talking here is to have vision and not the pursuit of Utopia.
Libertarian Socialism is to Anarchism what Secular Humanism is to Atheism. So to say that Libertarian Socialism never truly existed is the same as saying Anarchism also never did.
The fact that Anarchism has been crushed by force doesn't in any way makes it inexistent, it only means that it has never been allowed to go beyond theory.
All the ranting about hierarchy and the necessity of it is baseless, in a participatory economy you could without any problem say I don't wanna and no one can come and say but you gotta!, if you don't want to do it you just are going to get less remuneration or won't enjoy all the benefits of the system, that's all. Sounds familiar?
It sounds odd that you would prefer to elect someone to make decisions for you, that sound a lot like my elected representative knows what's good for me better than I do. The same representative that can be bribed (read: lobbied) to make decisions that are in opposition to your interests.
In a participatory economy you would be able to influence decisions in proportion as the decisions affect you. In other words, you have 100% control of what color to paint your house because you are the only affected by that decision, then you would have a vote in the neighbors council regarding the type of shrubs to be planted on the median of the street that runs through the neighborhood, also a vote in the city council in relation to the proposed new subway line, etc. Or no vote if you choose not to participate.
In conclusion, it would be as is today in which you choose where to live depending on the surroundings and culture that better fit your personality. The consumer councils and community councils from, let's say NY City and Nashville would be drastically different in their vision and culture and you could choose which one is better suited for you; a lot like today but with the power to influence outcomes that now are completely out of reach for the ordinary citizen, and without being dependent on the good will or honesty of your elected representative.
Libertarian Socialism has no bits and pieces of Capitalism, workers councils and consumers councils take the place of the market. In a system of proposals and iterations they arrive to ideal output, type of output, and so on. So no one person or group is in charge.
About the 100 Libertarian Socialists, is that a fact or just a guess on your part?. Also, aren't there a few Capitalist tendencies too?
So I take that you prefer that decisions concerning your life are taken for you instead of by you.
MrGautama
Not a Member
So you propose to just ignore the facts that contradict Hultberg's theory in order to make it work?, isn't that being a bit less than objective?. Ignoring the existence of the Anarchist left movement is just a sign of the profound ignorance or deceptiveness that Hultberg exhibits.
Let me give you another example of how he has taken a perfectly sound concept and used it completely out of context:
We are going to use something very familiar to us as drivers, safe driving. If we take Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean and apply it to safety in driving we would be presented with the following table:
reckless driving.............inattentive driving................safe driving
Where the mean (virtue) is inattentive driving, excess (vice) is safe driving, and defect (vice) is reckless driving.
So the conclusion would be that the desirable attitude would be inattentive driving instead of safe driving.
In your experience is inattentive driving better than safe driving?
Just a few facts that contradict de Havilland who is a Libertarian and is trying to justify the usurpation of the name from the left, you might find the following interesting and I encourage you to check them for accuracy:
- Libertarian Socialism is a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.
- Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's.
- The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example).
- In the USA, anarchists organized "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965.
- The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas.
Hultberg and de Havilland are just charlatans and so easily disproved that they are not taken seriously anywhere. In the spirit of understanding I would suggest resorting to better sources, there have been some heavyweights in the right that may give a more accurate take, like William Buckley... mmm... I don't know who else... is not like they are very abundant!
MrGautama
Not a Member
Most of your post can be refuted by what I posted in response to Turtle and Pilgrim, but what's left I'll gladly address.
Let's talk about human nature, so you are sure that we are greedy, and self centered?. How about this:
You are looking down your window, it's a scorching hot day and you see a small child with an ice cream standing by the corner, a man walking down the street in this hot day sees the kid, takes the ice cream from him, pushes the little boy into the gutter and keeps on his way with his refreshing new cone.
Would your reaction be, well that is a normal specimen of human being acting the way he is supposed to; you know selfish and greedy?.
Or would you think that man is just a walking pathology and you may even would go down stairs to confront him or to check on the child?.
Human nature is a complicated thing that the best we can say about it is that we just don't know if it's good or bad but an argument for basic goodness could be: think of someone you believe is the embodiment of goodness, I don't know... Mother Theresa, or that guy that donated bone marrow to a stranger, etc., it's easy to explain evil in a system that pushes people to behave anti-socially, to be greedy and self centered; a system that actually punishes the ones that show a good predisposition. What is hard to explain is that even considering all the pressures to the contrary we see some people show that human nature can be resilient to generalized downward push and still raise above the surface to show it's better side.
As I said, we really don't know but that's not a reason to keep attached to a set of institutions that reinforce antisocial behavior instead of trying to device a system that would encourage the opposite.
For the very contrary, in a participatory economy I would be subsidized, you read right... subsidized to voice my dissent. Progress comes from dissent and not from consent so it would occupy a very important part in that kind of society.
Let's talk about human nature, so you are sure that we are greedy, and self centered?. How about this:
You are looking down your window, it's a scorching hot day and you see a small child with an ice cream standing by the corner, a man walking down the street in this hot day sees the kid, takes the ice cream from him, pushes the little boy into the gutter and keeps on his way with his refreshing new cone.
Would your reaction be, well that is a normal specimen of human being acting the way he is supposed to; you know selfish and greedy?.
Or would you think that man is just a walking pathology and you may even would go down stairs to confront him or to check on the child?.
Human nature is a complicated thing that the best we can say about it is that we just don't know if it's good or bad but an argument for basic goodness could be: think of someone you believe is the embodiment of goodness, I don't know... Mother Theresa, or that guy that donated bone marrow to a stranger, etc., it's easy to explain evil in a system that pushes people to behave anti-socially, to be greedy and self centered; a system that actually punishes the ones that show a good predisposition. What is hard to explain is that even considering all the pressures to the contrary we see some people show that human nature can be resilient to generalized downward push and still raise above the surface to show it's better side.
As I said, we really don't know but that's not a reason to keep attached to a set of institutions that reinforce antisocial behavior instead of trying to device a system that would encourage the opposite.
For the very contrary, in a participatory economy I would be subsidized, you read right... subsidized to voice my dissent. Progress comes from dissent and not from consent so it would occupy a very important part in that kind of society.
Last edited:
MrGautama
Not a Member
We already know what your little twisted perversion is Eddie so you don't have to keep stating it... we get it!
Cracker Jack research. Good job!
Factual? Eternal? Puhleeze. Show me the facts that show where the US has always been involved in the intervention of Latin America, and that we always will be, forever.
Any and all involvement in Latin America is, was and always will be solely for the benefit of American corporations, with no other benefits at all, ever? Really?
Can't buy into "eternal" nor into "solely for the benefit", therefor "instrumental" isn't factual, either.
Greed is subjective, and connecting the subjective greed with concentrations of power is something that cannot be factually proved. It's illusory corollary at best, not fact.
Again, a conclusion based not of facts, but on assumptions and illusory corollaries.
Playing it a little fast and loose with the word "facts" aren't you? Just because something is believed en mass does not make it true, regardless of how many or how strongly they believe. Anarchists believe certain things, absolutely, so preaching what they already believe will give you the expected results. Same holds true for most any group of like-minded thinking. You can't expect people to jump to your side of thinking on a "I'm more educated and enlightened than you are on this subject, therefor you should take me at my word," kind of argument.
Yeah, 'cause we're all just butt-stoopid.
If you want to convince anyone of your arguments, yeah, you should.
Excellent example of the complex question, with a little holier than thou thrown in for good measure.
Good example in that it illustrates that the audience has no responsibility here. It is up to the speaker to alter his presentation to the audience if he is to make an effective presentation. The example used is not a particularly good one, however, as the roundness of the Earth is well known and understood by a vast majority of the people, and thus little or no convincing of that fact is needed. The arguments you are making here are not based on such a widespread foundation.
Uh, but there is a difference between a want and an entitlement.
No, of cours not. But I still want a houseboar, just the same. Now what?
Yeah, direct democracy, majority rules, I don't get my houseboat, I guess.
A Utopian vision and the pursuit of Utopia are not all that different from each other, though. One might even charge "semantics".
The fact that Anarchism has been crushed by force doesn't in any way makes it inexistent, it only means that it has never been allowed to go beyond theory.[/quote]You're kinda maing my point there. If it hasn't been allowed to go beyong theory, there ya go. The notion that it would even be allowed to go beyond theory is a Utopian notion, Utopian in the sense that those who would crush it would instead let it be. That's not gonna happen. It's Utopian to think it would, though.
Yeah, sounds like capitalism where if you don't wanna work you can't buy a houseboat.
Yeah, it does sound odd.
No, I want a houseboat, and I don't want someone else deciding if I can have it or not.
We already know what your little twisted perversion is Eddie so you don't have to keep stating it... we get it!
Not my words slick...stright from your bible...
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Sorry Guy/gals it is purposefully too deep for me at this stage of my political career.
All I know is we have an anarchist who may not understand that if they get their wish, they won't have rights, no government protection and they may be the target of frustrated former citizens of our country.
Maybe some of you noticed with some of these people here that they are either apologetic for their misgivings in their lives or are somewhat failures in their lives - both fall into a group that if I am not mistake cling to a need to vilify everything that they see wrong with themselves by using the country as the vehicle of theior own self hate.
No matter, we have in our country more of a movement of the anarcho-syndicalism (sp?) types, like the union who protested AIG and so on and I read that same style of rhetoric here for some reason.
All I know is we have an anarchist who may not understand that if they get their wish, they won't have rights, no government protection and they may be the target of frustrated former citizens of our country.
Maybe some of you noticed with some of these people here that they are either apologetic for their misgivings in their lives or are somewhat failures in their lives - both fall into a group that if I am not mistake cling to a need to vilify everything that they see wrong with themselves by using the country as the vehicle of theior own self hate.
No matter, we have in our country more of a movement of the anarcho-syndicalism (sp?) types, like the union who protested AIG and so on and I read that same style of rhetoric here for some reason.
MrGautama
Not a Member
Well Turtle we gave it a try and that is your conclusion. Mine is that cognitive dissonance in this case is too strong limiting the objectivity you can exhibit, the only two solutions when people are presented with such a dilemma are “changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors”, and you chose the latter. I am convinced you don't suffer from “political” true-believer syndrome and that it would be enough for you to honestly investigate the subject to get a clearer picture according to the facts. As usual, it's been a pleasure and a learning experience to discuss an interesting subject with you.
MrGautama
Not a Member
No Google bee, I'm talking about that deviant obsession with spanking kids that you have...
MrGautama
Not a Member
Do you ever research the subject before forming an opinion?. Crazy conclusions you arrive to when not in command of the basic information.
No obsession of spanking kids here. In fact, I have not spanked a kid in a long time. But, there are a lot of kids out there that need their little butts spanked! You know the ones that think there is no acountability to their actions.